iPad, iPhone and the iPhone Gift Card may not be used in third-party promotions.

iPod touch is only allowed to be used in special circumstances and requires a minimum purchase of 250 units.

You may NOT use the Myriad Set font on or in connection with web sites, products, packaging, manuals, or promotional/advertising materials.

The use of "free" as a modifier in any Apple product reference in a prominent manner (headlines, call- outs, etc.) is prohibited.

You must submit all marketing materials related to the promotion of Apple products to Apple for review.

That all sounds lovingly dictatorial on the part of Apple, but I'm left scratching my head how the company thinks these guidelines are even remotely enforceable. If someone has legitimately bought one of these devices, I can't see under what legal basis Apple can claim that a giveaway promotion violates the law. Perhaps there's a weak trademark claim, but I can't see it holding up in most cases (there could be a few exceptions). But, really, what is Apple thinking here? People use its products in giveaways and contests because the product is desirable . Why fight that?

Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.

Quick question about Apple tracking your purchases...I've never even been in an Apple store, but what if I pay with cash? Or does Apple not allow that, or do they insist on signing a form when buying an iPad? Just some clarification please

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.

Correct. Apple is required to take cash as payment for any transaction. However, Apple a free enterprise and is not required to sell you anything, nor are they required to tell you why they won't sell to you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.

Any business can refuse service to anyone they wish so long as they are not receiving government funding. If you think you are being discriminated against you are free to file a civil action, but it certainly isn't illegal to refuse to sell.

Fred asks whether American Airlines was acting lawfully when it recently announced that it would no longer accept cash for “in flight” purchases, such as food and drinks. As Fred notes, “All passengers are trapped -- there is no means of egress during a flight, unlike a ground-based transport system, or other 'brick and mortar' retail store.” In other words, the passengers can’t defect to a rival airline in mid-flight.

That’s a great point, Fred -- and thanks to my recent six-hour delay on the tarmac at LaGuardia, I can confirm that airline passengers are, indeed, trapped. But unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that the airlines have to accept our cash. The short answer is that federal legal tender laws require creditors to accept payment denominated in dollars, but generally do not require businesses to accept any particular form of payment -- such as cash. Federal legal tender laws require creditors to accept payment denominated in dollars, but generally do not require businesses to accept any particular form of payment -- such as cash.

Cash is King

When we use the term “cash” in the United States, we generally mean coins minted by the US Treasury, and dollar bills, which are actually called “Federal Reserve notes.” Some people think that cash is dirty stuff, but I confess to being rather attached to the stuff. So are a lot of people, apparently, because no-cash policies tend to raise a chorus of protests.

A couple of years ago, many consumers were frustrated when Apple announced that it would not accept cash for iPhones, and would only accept payment by credit card. In an earlier episode, we explained that Apple was probably within its rights as a private business to require payment by credit cards.

And now American Airlines’ policy -- which some expect other airlines to follow -- is raising a similar round of protests. It just goes to show how much people like cash. I mean, I could understand making a fuss about iPhones but airplane food?

What is “Legal Tender”?

Oh well. What has people confused is the notion that cash is “legal tender.” If you look at a dollar bill -- er, Federal Reserve Note -- in your wallet, you’ll see that it says “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.”

“Legal tender” is what makes an official currency official. It means that a creditor must accept federal reserve notes in satisfaction of a debt. If you get to the checkout line at the local Piggly Wiggly and the cashier demands payment in rubles or pesos you have every right to say “Sorry buddy, but I’ve got some Federal Reserve notes burning a hole in my pocket.”

You have that right under the "legal tender" statute which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

Businesses Must Accept “Dollars,” but Not Cash

This means that US notes and coins are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. However, although businesses must accept dollars, that doesn’t mean they literally have to take your big wad of bills, which is bulky, difficult to make change for, and, frankly, a breeding ground for germs. A vendor can usually put reasonable conditions on the manner in which they will accept dollars, and one of those conditions can be that they’ll only accept dollars electronically, via credit card. Or, as the US Treasury explains on their website, “Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.”

So far, Legal Lad has yet to find a state law that mandates payment in cash. In fact, as we discussed in our earlier episodes, courts in a number of states have dismissed challenges to various no-cash policies. But Fred, if you can find a state that forbids no-cash policies, then you can certainly try to get the airline to accept your cash -- of course, you’ll have to wait until the plane is flying over that particular state. On second thought, if you really have a hankering for rubber chicken, soggy sandwiches, and teeny-tiny bottles of chardonnay, play it safe and bring your plastic on-board.

Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.

Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.

Yes, they have refused cash purchases. The basic idea here was to prevent people from buying multiple iPads and sell them to countries where iPad has not been officially released yet. Nevertheless, I do not think this is any of Steve Gods' business.

More reasons why Android is smoking Apple and why the I-phone and I-Pad will become nothing but a niche devises. While Android anchorages openness and access, Apple is circling the wagons. I will NEVER by an Apple product.

Re:

Re:

No body is smoking Apple yet. No Android or any other such device has had long queues at the store's door, waiting to sweep off the FDRS (First day release to store), and get sold off the first day itself. Now you may call those people what ever you want, but the fact remains. Apple does not give away freebies but promises you a great product, and still follows DRM very strictly, for many reasons including their own and their partners (including many individuals who make a living out of making apps for Apple products.) Which is a pretty honest way survive, in times where many are looking for cheap and free way to get stuff.

I've been waiting for them to do this.

They have a "weak" trademark claim? Yes and no. Theoretically, it's a weak claim. (The claim would be false indication of sponsorship.) But as a practical matter, it might be a strong claim. Why? Apple has fantastic lawyers. The likely defendants in the first round of cases – people who use enticements of free iPads to push spyware or something equally sleazy – will have weak lawyers. Even lawyering talent being equal, judges often side with prestigious corporations who are big employers over fly-by-night three-person shops. That will allow Apple to establish precedent for its position that it can use against better-lawyered opponents in later rounds.

Sorry to be such a realist, but that's the way I see it going. In fact, similar dynamics may have already established helpful precedent – I haven't researched the case law.

Re: I've been waiting for them to do this.

there is a different thing for a defense against apple suing you for a legal contest

there is the thing called simply describing the prize and is not a trademark or copyright issue -- simply describing the prize is not a thing they can win since it is reasonable to say if you give a ipad as prize you tell people what the prize will be under consumer protection laws so people do not show up thinking they can win a new mercedes when the prize is a hershey candy bar and yes you are required to describe the prizes being given under the sweepstakes and lottery laws as well as consumer protection

so - apple suing for giving away their product is nothing more than a delusional mind by apple since it is not legal to tell people what they can do with things they legally bought

Long time lurker here...

I don't think that this actually relates to mom & pop stores that are giving away free iPads for every gun purchased or something. I think this actually relates to major Retailers, such as Best Buy(tm)(r)(c), Sears(tm)(r)(c) and others(tm)(r)(c).

Most likely, the prince currently known as Steve Jobs(tm)(r)(c), is wanting to always elevate the price point and value point of the product. He probably was yelling at someone that a free iPad seemingly devalues the product, as does any other kind of promotion in his(sm) mind. So in a vain (valiant?) effort, he's going to try to stifle competition and continue to use and enforce copyrights, trademarks and other blunt instruments on the consumers of his products.

After a while, folks are going to get headaches (like they did on Blackberries) and go to other places where there is more freedoms.

Re:

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 2nd, 2011 @ 2:50pm

Hahaha, made me giggle. Unfortunely for me I bought an iphone and I have had nothing but problems. Which is not funny. Since I live 4 hrs from store but bought my phone 10 min from house. I cannot even fix my phone. Now I realize how awful their software is and that they don't back up their products. Its insanity that people defend apples actions. I didnt understand the differences between apple and android Just goes to show you how much advertising and dressing up a piece of crap can fool people, yes even me.I cannot wait to get rid of my iphone.

Re:

Theoretically, they can do that. Copyrights on fonts are as weak as copyright on clothing, but a typeface can be trademarked.

Note: A font is a file type with the vector expression of a set of particular characters, and adding a single point to the vector component is all one needs to get around it. A typeface is what the font looks like, usually referring to how the type looks printed. Yes, it is a technicality - but one Apple's well-paid legal team is willing to hammer people with.

because the product is desirable . Why fight that?

Contract law

Apparently you can buy iPads at a discount from Apple to be used in promotions, and they have language in the contracts for those reduced-price promo iPads that says your promotion can't reflect badly on Apple. Apple is just starting to enforce the contracts. If you buy it at retail and give it away, the doctrine of first sale protects you.

I'm not 100%, but that's the explanation I saw elsewhere. I hate Apple as much as the next guy, but I don't want to hate them for a non-reason.

Re: Contract law

Doctrine of First Sale probably wouldn't protect you. Many years ago I worked for a company making PC based scientific instruments, and when the IBM PS/2 came out we decided to use that as our main platform. Then we got a call from IBM telling us we couldn't resell them. I remember the conversation well.

(IBM man) "You can't resell a PS/2 you purchased."
(Us) "Yes we can, we own it, we can do as we like with it"
(IBM) "No you can't"
(Us) "Then we don't own it"
(IBM) "Yes you do"
(Us) "Then we can sell it"
(IBM) "No you can't"

Turned out the BIOS firmware was LICENSED not SOLD, based on a shrink wrap agreement that nobody reads, and the license was not transferable. I'm certain you'll find the same clause somewhere in the Apple product literature.

It actually points up a bigger problem than just Apple - software can be protected by copyright, patents and licensing all at the same time. No other goods have such unwarranted privileges. It's about time they were cut back and vendors forced to pick just one of the three.

Re: Re: Contract law

What if you gave away the iThing and informed the recipient that they weren't getting a licence to use the software on it? Then Apple would have to go after the recipient for using the software without a license, which would be problematic since they never made any agreement with Apple. I wonder if that could hold up in court.

Re: Re: Re: Contract law

Scrub it, then let the buyer install all the pirated shit s/he wants. I love that formerly-forward-thinking Apple is falling prey to the same capitalist fucking greed and backwards-think that they beat out in the market to get where they are today. Or, I guess, where they were yesterday. Fuck Apple. I'm building my own shit from now on and running it on Linux. I'm getting my ass on my own grid. Some company thinks it can dictate how I listen to music, what I give away to my friends and when I can turn on the lights? Fuck that.

I'm with you on this one...

I'm with you on this one, Mike. Apple may be able to exert control over those who wish to be distributors, but if you I go out and purchase an Apple product, as far as I'm concerned I can do whatever I want with the device and I couldn't care less what Apple thinks.

I'm sure that Apple could restrict the ability to use their copyrighted brand images in promotions, but other than that I think they're out of luck.

The arrogance of this makes me want to go purchase a handful of Shuffles and run a giveaway campaign on Facebook for 'FREE shitty Apple-manufactured music players.'

I'm with you on this one...

I'm with you on this one, Mike. Apple may be able to exert control over those who wish to be distributors, but if you I go out and purchase an Apple product, as far as I'm concerned I can do whatever I want with the device and I couldn't care less what Apple thinks.

I'm sure that Apple could restrict the ability to use their copyrighted brand images in promotions, but other than that I think they're out of luck.

The arrogance of this makes me want to go purchase a handful of Shuffles and run a giveaway campaign on Facebook for 'FREE shitty Apple-manufactured music players.'

Re: I'm with you on this one...

I'm going to buy up iPads and give them away as Frisbees...I mean flying discs. The contest begins AFTER the giveaway, and the winner is the one who heaves the free pad the farthest. Prize is an Android.

Wait a Minute

I would think this was just an attempt to stop the endless spam inducements saying "Congratulations! You have won a free I-Pod for being the 1,000,000th visitor to this page!" This clause would certainly let Apple sue the spammers to stop using Apple's name and products as inducement.

Maybe so they can approve each contest. I've seen a contest to win an Apple iPad and to win you had to say in 25 words or less "Why Apple products suck". I entered it myself, only so I can sell the prize on Ebay as Apple fanboy idiots pay big bucks for second hand used products, so will pay even more for an unopened product.

Prepaid Credit Cards

The Concept of "Sale" Vaporizing

Another example of a company extending its reach post-sale. Technically if someone buys a product, such as an iPad, they are free to sell it or give it away free. I don't seem much difference between giving something away even when done through a promotional event or not. Apple was already paid for the product, what one does with the product should not be Apple's business.

Consideration

I'm wondering how they can enforce this, since there is no consideration for the agreement, especially with iPad and Touch since you just hand over your money and get the product. You haven't agreed to anything other than that you are forking over 500+ dollars for a computer thing in a small box. Sure, there's probably some shrinkwrap boilerplate *inside* the box or pops up on screen when you start the thing up, but that doesn't somehow retroactively make consideration paid for that agreement. There is no agreement at the time of purchase. When you buy it, you can't be presumed to know that there are terms for the use of the product beyond what is stated on the box especially such that you lose fundamental rights to free use and conveyance of a retail item.

And to further the point, if consideration is failing at the outset to enforce the contract at the time you purchase the iPad, then only valuable consideration would make any "ratification" of the agreement binding. Therefore, Apple would have to pay (or transfer some other benefit to you) for the ability to enforce the additional agreement you "sign" when you open the box and start the thing up.

Re: Consideration

Companies seem to now believe that when they issue a "policy" it "makes law", therefore they are entitled to proactively take whatever action they need to take to "protect" their so-called intellectual property from "criminals". Due process and private property rights for the consumer are obsolete as far as the corporations are concerned

Re: Consideration

When you buy it, you can't be presumed to know that there are terms for the use of the product beyond what is stated on the box especially such that you lose fundamental rights to free use and conveyance of a retail item.

Some courts have found otherwise regarding software EULAs. Since iStuff comes with software on it, I assume it has such agreements that you are (in some jurisdictions) bound by whether you want to agree to them or not.

Re: Re: Consideration

> Some courts have found otherwise regarding software EULAs.

But if you're buying the iPad to give away for free in a contest, you're not going to open the box or start the thing up, so you never even *get* to the point where you're "agreeing" to a EULA. Even a EULA has to presented to the consumer to read before it can be deemed to be "agreed to".

All you're doing is forking over your money at the Apple store for the packaged product, and unless they present you with some contract to sign there at the register, you've agreed to nothing other than the exchange of money for iPad.

Re: Re: Re: Consideration

Hey, I'm with you, I don't think they should be at all binding. I don't know enough about the case law to say what exactly would apply in a resale situation, but I don't think it's as clear cut as "no way could the EULA get the reseller in trouble".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consideration

The EULAs state that use of the software constitutes acceptance of the agreement, whether you read the agreement or not. So if you just take the thing home and don't use it, then no, there is no court that would find you're bound by the EULA (AFAIK). But if you use or install the software, then you might be.

Even worse is many retailers won't accept a return on opened software, so if you don't agree to the terms, you would have to seek a refund from the manufacturer, or try to get the retailer to make an exception.

reading

Apple Inc Mobile Promo

Today, I received an SMS on my mobile phone saying that I had won 900,000 U.K. Pounds in the Apple Inc Mobile Promo and it gave me a claim number. It also asked me to email details of my age, occupation and address to info@applescom.com.
Obviously, I am VERY sceptical about all of this and I am thinking that it may be a "Scam", so won't be tendering any information on myself (won't even reply to the Text).
Has anyone out there heard of this happening to them?